建成環境影響兒童通學方式與運具選擇之研究：臺北市文山區國小兒童之實證分析

Built Environment Impacts on Children's School Travel: Empirical Analysis of Elementary School Students in Taipei Wenshan District

10.6402/TPJ.200809.0331

林楨家(Jen-Jia Lin)；張孝德(Hsiao-Te Chang)

建成環境 ； 兒童 ； 通學方式 ； 運具選擇 ； 巢式羅吉特模式 ； Built environment ； Children ； School travel pattern ； Mode choice ； Nested logit model

運輸計劃季刊

37卷3期（2008 / 09 / 30）

331 - 361

繁體中文

本研究目的在實證分析建成環境特性對兒童通學方式與運具選擇的影響，根據實證結果，地方政府可以鼓勵兒童獨自或步行通學為目標，研提可行的都市規劃策略。研究選擇臺北市文山區指南、景美、興華等三所國小學生進行問卷調查，利用巢式羅吉特模式進行分析。研究結果發現，在兒童的上學旅次中，土地使用混合程度、運具多樣性指標以及人行道比例，對於兒童獨自或步行上學均為正向影響，而街廓規模、車道寬度與交叉路口數則是呈現負向影響關係；另外，在兒童的放學旅次中，正向影響兒童獨自或步行放學的建成環境特性為建物密度與道路車輛密度，而負向影響的特性則有街廓規模和車道寬度。

The purpose of this study is to empirically analyze the influences of built environments on children's school travel. Based on the empirical findings, local governments can develop urban planning strategies to encourage children to go to school independently or by walking. The study chose the students of three elementary schools, Chinan, Jingmei, and Xinhwa, in Taipei, Wenshan District, as samples and used questionnaire surveys. The sample data was analyzed using the nested logit model. The results of this study indicate that mixed land use, mode diversity and length percentage of sidewalks encourage children to go to school independently or by walking, while block size, road width and number of intersections discourage children from going to school independently or by walking. Furthermore, building density and vehicle density encourage children to leave school independently or by walking, but block size and road width discourage children from leaving school independently or by walking.

1. Ben-Akiva, M.,Lerman, S. R.(1985).Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
2. Boarnet, G. M.,Crane, R.(2001).Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel.New York:Oxford University Press.
3. Bradshaw, R.(1995).Why Do Parents Drive Their Children to School.Traffic Engineering and Control,36(1),16-19.
4. Cervero, R.(2002).Built Environment and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework.Transportation Research D,7(4),265-284.
5. Cervero, R.(1996).Mixed Land-uses and Commuting: Evidence from the American Housing Survey.Transportation Research A,30(5),361-377.
6. Working Paper, University of California Transportation Center
7. Cervero, R.,Kockelman, K.(1997).Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.Transportation Research D,2(3),199-219.
8. Chatman, D.(2003).The Influence of Workplace Land Use and Commute Mode Choice on Mileage Traveled for Personal Commercial Purposes.Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board
9. Crane, R.(2000).The Influence of Urban Form on Travel: An Interpretive Review.Journal of Planning Literature,15(1),3-23.
10. Frank, L.,Pivo, G.(1994).Impacts of Mixed Land Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking.Transportation Research Record,1466,44-52.
11. Greenwald, M.,Boarnet, M.(2001).Department of Urban and Regional Planning.Irvine:University of California.
12. Handy, S.(1996).Urban Form and Pedestrian Choice: Study of Austin Neighborhoods.Transportation Research Record,1552,135-144.
13. Hayashi, T.,Tsumura, K.,Suematsu, C.,Okada, K.,Fujii, S.,Endo, G.(1999).Walking to Work and the Risk of Hypertension in Men: The Osaka Health Survey.Annals of Internal Medicine,130,21-26.
14. Hu, G.,Pekkarinen, H.,Hanninen, O.,Tian, H.,Guo, Z.(2001).Relation between Commuting, Leisure Time Physical Activity and Serum Lipids in a Chinese Urban Population.Annals of Human Biology,28(4),412-421.
15. Isebrands, H.,Hallmark, S.,Liu, X.(2006).School Transportation Modes for Urban and Suburban Elementary School in Iowa.Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting
16. Jones, P.,Bradshaw, R.(2000).The Family and the School Run: What Would Make a Real Difference.London:AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, University of Westminster.
17. Joo, J.(2002).Local Transit Access: The Relevance of the Local Environment in Predicting Travel Mode Choice.A Master Project of the University of North Carolina.
18. Lin, J. J.,Hsiao, P. C.(2006).Strategy Development of Mixed Land-use for Restraining Trip Generation in Taipei City.Transportation Research Record,1983,167-174.
19. Mackett, R.(2002).Increasing Car Dependency of Children: Should We be Worried?.Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer,151(1),29-38.
20. McDonald, N.(2006).Children`s Travel Patterns: Evidence from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey.Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting
21. McMillan, T.(2005).Urban Form and a Child's Trip to School: The Current Literature and a Framework for Future Research.Journal of Planning Literature,19(4),440-456.
22. McMillan, T.(2007).The Relative Influence of Urban Form on a Child's Travel Mode to School.Transportation Research A,41(1),69-79.
23. Morris, J.,Wang, F.,Lilja, L.(2001).School Children`s Travel Patterns: A Look Back and a Way Forward.The 24th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Melbourne, Planning and Transport Research Centre
24. Rajamani, J.,Bhat, C.,Handy, S.,Knaap, G.,Song, Y.(2003).Assessing Impact of Urban Form Measures on Nonwork Trip Mode Choice after Controlling for Demographic and Level-of-Service Effects.Transportation Research Record,1831,158-165.
25. Reilly, M.,Landis, J.(2002).The Influence of Built-form and Land Use on Mode Choice: Evidence from the 1996 Bay Area Travel Survey.Research Paper, University of California Transportation Center.
26. Rhoulac, T.(2005).Bus or Car: The Classic Choice in the Context of School Transportation.Transportation Research Record,1922,98-104.
27. Schwanen, T.,Mokhtarian, P.(2005).What Affects Commute Mode Choice-Neighborhood Physical Structure or Preferences toward Neighborhood.Journal of Transport Geography,13(1),83-99.
28. Stefan, K.,Hunt, J.(2006).Age-based Analysis of Travel by Children in Calgary, Canada.Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting
29. Transportation Research Board(2005).Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence.Washington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board.
30. Zhang, M.(2004).The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice.Journal of the American Planning Association,70(3),344-360.
31. 林楨家、楊恩捷(1996)。都市型態對旅運需求影響之結構化分析。運輸學刊，118(4)，391-418。
32. 洪玉蕙(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所。
33. 張孝德(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所。
34. 郭子齊(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
35. 陳文慧(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所。
36. 黃文俊(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學體育學系。
37. 臺北市政府交通局(2001)。臺北都會區整體運輸規劃基本資料之調查與驗校（二）。
38. 蕭博正(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所。
39. 蘇昭銘、陳雅慧(1999)。中華民國第六屆運輸安全研討會論文集。中華民國運輸學會。

1. 陳美智、張淑貞、何曉萍(2016)。都市人、車流量與街道空間型態之關連性分析－以新竹市為例。建築學報，98，81-96。
2. 董娟鳴、徐歆怡(2014)。小型衛星城鎮兒童的通學獨立移動以新北市泰山、義學國小為例。地理學報，74，31-61。
3. 林楨家、吳建彤、方若庭(2011)。建成環境對捷運轉乘運具選擇的影響：臺北捷運南港線之實證研究。運輸計劃季刊，40(4)，335-366。
4. 翁珮怡、江彥政(2012)。多走路多健康：步行環境與居民健康之關係。戶外遊憩研究，25(4)，25-50。
5. 謝政穎、謝竺君(2014)。學童步行通學最佳環境安全路徑之研究－以台中市上石國小為例。建築與規劃學報，15(1)，43-60。